Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

The Pope makes a sandwich for the Swiss Guard. After getting him a chair so he could order the man to sit down and rest his feet a little.

Dang, if anyone could make me want to convert from being a Protestant to a Catholic, this guy could.

I'm not planning to convert to Catholicism from being a Protestant, but still.

Definitely a good PR guy. Now let's see some work as the head of the Church; some concrete reforms in general (how the Church handles child-molestation accusations, for example) will help.

I think their going to be handling that better. They've learned.

I'm baaaaaaack

Is there ever going to be a possibility of priests getting married? It seems to be the only efficient way to guarantee that all parishes will have a priest, in my opinion, since there are less and less new priests every year (at least in Western Europe).

edited 14th Apr '13 6:55:08 AM by Quag15

Strictly speaking, Catholic priests can already be married. Not Roman Catholic ones, of course; but the Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome and with the Pope, and, like the Orthodox, they allow married priests (but not bishops).

But as far as the Roman Catholic Church goes... well, it's technically possible that the decision will be reversed, since it is an administrative ruling and not a matter of Faith; but I don't see that being likely, and to be honest I don't consider it desirable either.

Priestly celibacy is a beautiful sign of commitment, I believe; and furthermore, it is a powerful testimony that — despite what our culture often seems to suggest — sex is neither a physical necessity nor something without which life is not worth living.

Sure, there are fewer priests than what would be ideal; but rather than doing away with priestly celibacy, I'd very much prefer if the Church granted more responsibilities to the laity and to Acolytes/Deacons (as it is in fact doing).

Also, I am not terribly convinced that the current lack of vocations to the priesthood are due to the celibacy rule. Yeah, celibacy can be difficult at times; but to be honest, it seems to me that other aspects of Catholic priesthood are at least as difficult to live with (and I would not want them to go away, either).

Priests make a promise of obedience to their bishop, for example; it's not the same thing as the vow of obedience that friars and monks make (for example, the Abbot of a convent can require to read a monk's private correspondence, whereas a bishop has no such right towards a priest), but still, it is far stronger than the average employer-employee relationship. Also, priesthood is essentially permanent: once you are made priest, you stay priest, and you cannot change careers (barring exceptional circumstances). And priesthood is exhausting, both physically and emotionally, and of course it pays pathetically badly compared to the effort that it requires.

People should not become priests because it is convenient, or easy, or a good career choice. It was like that in some past times; and yeah, it did not work out that well, in hindsight. They should become priests because they received a divine Call to do so, and they chose to obey it.

edited 14th Apr '13 7:30:49 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It's going to be a long slog to get there, Quag. The rules of the Church (as opposed to the dogma of the Faith) are very strongly Paulist, and his writings are very strongly against married priest. He did a lot to marginalize women's roles and participation in the church hierarchy; calling him a misogynist isn't something that can be easily dismissed.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Of course. I'm strictly speaking about Roman Catholic priests.

Personally, I'm in favour of optional celibacy. While I do understand the power of the call and the commitments it implies and the awesomeness of it (I even considered the possibility of becoming a missionary when I was younger), it seems that the only way to possibly attract more people in vocational terms would be to do some reformation of the rules and criteria to become a priest. Easing the whole celibacy would help, at least temporarily.

There was news today in my country that there was one mass that was celebrated without a priest (because there seems to be none available at the moment). Laity and Acolytes/Deacons will have greater responsibilities and opportunities to keep the celebrations going, sure, and I hope that will contribute to a greater equality and especially equity.

As for the convenience effect, there's a lot more scrutiny and an actual public opinion than there was in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Especially with the whole Internet tracking people's past more easily and being a bit more pro-active than the minority that existed circa Luther and Savonarola that denounced the Church's excesses. Also, there's the whole prejudiced image of "priests are child abusers" which makes people suspicious towards priests on the same level as people are suspicious towards, say, politicians and bankers.

I hope that the whole Paulist rules and rhetoric will get abandoned one day. It has too much Values Dissonance when compared to nowadays.

EDIT: By the way, Carciofus, what other aspects do you think that are difficult to live with regarding Catholic priesthood?

edited 14th Apr '13 9:24:55 AM by Quag15

The big issue is obedience to the bishop, I think. At least, that's what I'm sure I would have the most trouble with if I were a priest

Also, the fact that priesthood is permanent, as I said. It's one thing to try a career for a while, with the understanding that if you get tired of it or if a more interesting opportunity arises you can pursue it; but to make a vow that binds you to an activity for your whole life, and beyond? That's a daunting perspective.

To be honest, I don't remember anything in Paul which was against married priests. He valued celibacy, certainly; and he had some personal hang-ups about sexuality, that is also true. But as far as I remember, Paul never said that priests should not be married.

I think that Paul gets an undeservedly bad rep. Yeah, some of his points of view were definitely misogynistic; but he also wrote some of the most beautiful and insightful pages of the New Testament.

edited 14th Apr '13 10:16:18 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The Pope has ordered the creation of an advisory council, made up of eight outspokenly pro-reform Bishops from around the world, to help him govern and reform the Church.

The group includes an Italian, a German, an American, an Indian, an Australian, a Chilean, a Honduran and a Congolese.

edited 14th Apr '13 11:37:31 AM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Good. Let's see what they come up with; but it is certainly an encouraging sign.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I stumbled on interesting fact. In 1550s Catholic Church in Poland was very close to secede from Rome. Together with Calvinists, bishops proposed creation of one nation-wide Christian Church that would group together all Christians in Poland, unifying not Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Church with king as the head of the Church. No changes in dogma of each denomination except for the fact former Roman Catholics priests could get married and would be obliged to celebrate masses in Polish.

It didn't happen because the king changed his mind and feared that bad shit could happen if one of his successors weren't as openly accepting of all denominations as him.

It's really shame that it didn't happen since it would be interesting to see the Christians unified, even if it's only nation wide (though Commonwealth in 16th and 17th century was the second biggest country in Europe, second only to Russia and not by large margin)

edited 14th Apr '13 12:15:38 PM by CaptainKatsura

My President is Funny Valentine.

Unified in which sense? If I understand what you are saying, their dogmatic differences would have remained. They would just have all gone under the direct control of the king of Poland, which is hardly a good thing — under many aspects, we are still paying the consequences of the control that the Christian Roman Emperors had on the Church...

edited 14th Apr '13 12:43:30 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Unified in nominal sense which would be a further step compared to the general tolerance towards each other during the Golden and Silver Age of Poland. It could be even a stepping stone for eventual reconciliation. And it could ease tensions between Catholic and Orthodox bishops. One national Church would mean that Orthodox bishops would have to get seats in Senate. 40 % of population were Orthodox so it would be only fair to grant them equal rights in that regard.

But knowing the nobility, Polish Brothers would get kicked sooner or later anyway because they preached abolition of serfdom, and no noble whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim like spreading such ideas among their lower classes

Speaking of Orthodox and Catholic Church again, Greek Catholic Church came to existence thanks to idea of unification between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches in Poland, but it was done only partially thanks to Muscovite spies that bribed large part of Orthodox Bishops to secede from union. It wasn't as grand project as the former, but if it had been executed successfully it would still unify 80 % of population of Poland within one Church, but controlled by the Pope. It's likely that Protestants in response would band together just to be sure they can compete with it.

No Polish King would be able to pull off the stuff done by western rulers due to the fact its power was limited by Sejm and Senate. However, it would be likely that they could subtly favor one denomination over other and spark discontent. Sigismund The Third favored Catholics and that's why many Protestant nobles returned to Catholicism out of pragmatism. Non-Greek Catholic eastern nobles converted too, to dismay of their Orthodox serfs.

edited 14th Apr '13 1:14:14 PM by CaptainKatsura

My President is Funny Valentine.

Popes don't resign: they just get old. An article by William Oddie in the Catholic Herald about Benedict's reported ill-health and his own difficulty adjusting to a new Pope.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Carc:

Are you not godfearing enough to think He might go Babel on you? But seriously, when I did go to church I could barely stay awake/still/keep my voice down. I shudder to think what would have happened if It'd been in Latin.

Achaemenid & Ever 9:

Or maybe what Jesus actually said is more "Simon, you are one ballsy guy. how'd you like to be the foundation of my church?" or alternatively "Simon, you big lump. I bet you're the only one I can sucker into leading my Church".

Hey, we should make a TV Tropes translation!

...

And now you know why I always had trouble staying quiet in church.

EDIT: [1]:

Well, can't blame Ratzinger for keeping his distance to iron crosses*

though there not really a nazi thing

edited 15th Apr '13 3:54:02 PM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Pope Francis affirms Church's stance on LCWR.

The LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious) is an American Catholic organization representing 80% of Americans nuns. In April 2012, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (a better name), criticized doctrinal differences between the LCWR and the Holy See. These included the LCWR's positions on homsexuality, birth control, masturbation, and feminism. One Sister, Margaret Farley, wrote a book, Just Love, which emphasized tolerance of feminism, homosexuality, and wanking. The Church has been less than pleased with these "doctrinal differences", and wants them sorted. The LCWR have been criticizing the processes used to condemn them and are seemingly doubling down.

On the one hand, I respect the Church's right to regulate its own doctrines and affiliate organizations (especially given the way secular political parties treat anyone who goes "off-message" these days). On the other, I think the LCWR have some very good ideas indeed, and the Vatican could at least give them the time of day. The last thing the Church needs, especially given Francis's sky-high goodwill at the moment (all of it earned), is for a resurgence of the monolithic and McCarthyist Vatican of Pius XII, who really lived up to the "absolute" part of the Holy See's absolute monarchy.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

By the way, what has been the reaction so far to Pope Francis from Traditionalist Catholics?

Keep Rolling On

Try this. Though I think of traditionalist Catholics (not all of them, though) as something similar to the Pharisees.

So which is more important: the Church reviving tradition or the Church trying to adapt to modern society?

edited 18th Apr '13 4:33:54 AM by judasmartel

The latter, of course.

edited 18th Apr '13 5:31:25 AM by CaptainKatsura

My President is Funny Valentine.

Neither. The Church should be faithful to truth, and to truth alone.

Insofar as truth can be found in tradition, the Church should cherish and preserve it; and insofar as truth can be found in modern society, the Church should cherish and adopt it.

But the Church should not blindly adapt to our time's expectations any more than it should seal itself off in self-referential, blind admiration of its ancient traditions.

And it is generally more difficult to notice our time's prejudices and errors than the ones of earlier times, simply because we are immersed in it and they color our own worldviews; and this is the reason why — despite me leaning on the "progressive" side on more matters than not — I value and appreciate the contribution of more "conservative" elements (not that there aren't very silly people among Catholic conservatives — but there are very silly people among progressives too, so I guess that we are even ) to the Church.

Only through debate — spirited, drawn-out, often intensely frustrating debate — true progress can be achieved, I think. But I also think that we all, "Progressive" and "Traditionalist" Catholics alike (not that these distinctions are very useful or precise anyway), should at least try to ease up on factionalism. Some of the things that I've read "progressives" say about "traditionalists", or the other way around... yeah, regardless of who is right about <insert controversial issue here>, that just cannot be OK.

edited 18th Apr '13 6:01:57 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@Carc: The problem with honest conservatives, who I agree are very necessary (which is why we should thank Maxima for being around this forum and providing his badly-needed perspective), is that it's far easier to be blindly conservative than blindly progressive, and far less obvious. Accordingly, the blindness has much more opportunity to become toxic.

However, I disagree with your position on factionalism. I think that the existence of Traditionalist splinters is a good sign, because it means that the Church is purging its more toxic elements. For one example, after the SSPX was de-excommunicated, the Vatican told Bishop Richard Williamson that he'd have to get his head out of his ass (he's a Holocaust denier) before he could take up his duties, and SSPX purged him when he refused to cooperate. That's the purpose of hierarchical church authority, if there ever was one.

I dunno about that. I certainly notice crazy conservatives more than I do crazy progressives; but then again, the crazy that agrees with you is always harder to see than the crazy that disagrees with you.

There exist conservatively-minded people, who do not strike me as hateful or stupid, who would say instead that, while some self-proclaimed "conservatives" exist — like that Williamson guy — whose positions are catastrophically wrong and harmful to Christianity, most conservatives are perfectly reasonable people who are just attempting to protect the cherished traditions of their Church and the faith transmitted from their ancestors from the worldly innovations of "progressives".

But as far as avoiding factionalism goes, it has to work both ways. I cannot in good faith claim that the Church should strive more for dialogue and tolerance of differences of opinions towards the LCWR if, at the same time, I am denouncing the Church's dialogue with the SSPX. Even though, obviously, I think that the LCWR is mostly right and the SSPX is mostly wrong (or at least very misguided).

EDIT: On the topic of "crazy progressives", for example, consider Matthew Fox:

I mean, he is a good theologian (as far as I can tell: I am no theologian myself, obviously), and I am sure his heart is in the right place; but come on — a rave party instead of a Mass? New-agey, "everything goes" spirituality? Invoking Gaia in a Christian ritual, and then talking about "Buddha Nature", "the Goddess inherent in all things" and "the Cosmic Christ" all in the same breath?

Yeah, sorry, but no.

edited 20th Apr '13 2:23:14 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It's easier and less obvious to be blindly conservative, because blind progressives are obviously making stuff up, which does require more brain activity than parroting slogans. Also, it's easier for blind conservatives to find an echo chamber instead of making one for themselves. Fox' brand of nuttery is easy for anyone who isn't part of his particular flock to ignore, while Williamson has plenty of compatriots who'll gather around him at the swastika party and, if not dealt with harshly, risk poisoning Church teaching as a whole.

But progressives — blind or non-blind — are not finding their ideas out of nowhere; rather, they extract them from the cultural climate surrounding them. And indeed, the list of the typical "progressive/conservative" matters discussed within our religious communities (in no particular order: abortion, divorce, female priesthood, homosexuality, euthanasia) reflect exactly the list of the topics in which the typical worldview of our culture differs from the traditional religious position.*

Of course, people are not living stereotypes: it is obviously possible to be in favour of female priesthood and oppose divorce, or vice versa, and so on.

So one could make the case that it is progressives that are the ones at most risk of the echo-chamber effect, at least in mostly "liberal" venues like where I'm living (or this forum, for that matter).

But to be honest, I am not entirely sure what is the point of arguing about which ones of us are at the most risk of losing perspective. This is a risk that all human beings are subject to, after all; and if our disagreements have the side-effect of allowing us help each other avoiding this pitfall, well, that's for the better.

(By the way, I acknowledge that Fox and Williamson are not really comparable: Fox may have an outlandish and, I think, mistaken point of view, but as far as I know he never did anything even remotely as morally and intellectually corrupt as denying the Holocaust)

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Echo chambers happen on both sides for completely different reasons at the moment. Progressives tend to go onto internet circles that already agree with them, thereby exposing themselves to entire countries' worth of like minds, and conservatives are often geographically concentrated in relatively isolated rural communities with little expertise or interest in social media.

edited 21st Apr '13 5:19:39 PM by Pykrete